The Viewsonic VP912b was my initial choice because of its special coating and its 12ms panel... But Viewsonic replaced that coating recently with a new one and the colors are not as great as they were from what I'm reading...

The Samsung 915N looks real good. It's one of the latest models from Samsung with a 8ms panel. According to BeHardware, it's the most reactive screen on the market. The only problem is that this LCD is just analog. There is no DVI support...

Now the big question... Is there really a big difference between analog (DSUB15) and digital (DVI)? My video card is a Radeon X800XT (Asus) and supports both analog and digital without using any adaptor.

All else being equal, I would pick the Viewsonic for its pivot feature. Pivoting is really nice, especially if you web-browse a lot or have to type papers. I have a 19" LCD, and it stays in portrait-mode about 90% of the time. The Viewsonic also appears to have height adjust, swiveling, and possibly more tilt angle adjustment--all stuff that will make your screen more versatile or more comfortable to use.

I haven't seen either screen, and I don't know about the color specs or responsiveness of either of them. I'm just saying, if they're about equal in that respect, then the better ergonomics of the Viewsonic is a nice feature IMHO.

Is there really a big difference between analog (DSUB15) and digital (DVI)?

Yes, not huge, but definitely visible. And I know because I have a total of 3 LCDs in front of me right now-- 2 of them are identical but hooked up through DVI and VGA respectively. No question that the DVI display is just sharper. Is it a huge difference? No. But side by side, it is visible.

It also depends on the quality of your video card's analogue output; for a couple of my nVIDIA-based cards, an LCD without DVI is simply unacceptable for me. Were I to be given one as a gift, I'd sell it for the money to buy one that does have DVI.

On my Matrox card though, it's very difficult to see the difference; I'd say close to impossible if you have a very good LCD. The quality of the analogue output vs. the digital output also depends upon the display, because some displays do a better job with analogue than others; those that don't ebenfit more from the digital connection.

Remember that LCDs are digital by nature; using them analogue means a double conversion (digital to analogue and then analogue back to digital) which, the higher the resolution, the greater the quality loss. A proper digital LCD suffers zero conversion degradation.

I own the Dell 1905FP. Beautiful for text, good for images. Absolutely god-awful for games and movies.

I think the 1905 uses Samsung's newest PVA panel, since the 1905FP and Samsung 193P have the same specs, and because Dell has used Samsung panels in the past. Look at this response time graph of PVA panels, and compare it to TN and S-IPS response times. Gray-to-gray transitions take ages, and it's really obvious when things move on-screen. It must be the slowest panel on the market.

I love it, but I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy if he was a hardcore gamer or avid movie watcher.

Hmmmm.... I guess that DVI makes a difference then!... I can have both LCDs at a "very" good price, so that's why I'm considering them...

The only drawback with the VP912b is that it's a Viewsonic. My previous CRT was a Viewsonic PS790, one of the most expensive 19" from Viewsonic when I bought it (Professional serie). It's now buzzing like hell and have 3 dead pixels, so I'm not too willing to give Viewsonic another chance. I know Viewsonic is busy with their RMA service... We had to return a lot of them under warranty in the past... Maybe Samsung is better in term of quality. Maybe I was just unlucky with Viewsonic.

I'm wondering if there's a good LCD around with 8-12ms, good colors reproduction, good adjustments, DVI connections and at the same price... I'm not considering a Dell (none of my suppliers carry them) or any cheaper brands like BenQ (bad experience). This LCD will be used mainly for programming, web design and gaming. So I need good colors and no ghosting at all. Is it possible?

gbraun wrote:

The viewsonic displays 16.7M (8-bit) colours. The Samsung 16.2 Million (6-bit with dithering up to the 16.2).

Nope! Both LCDs are 16.2M colors, not only the Samsung. Both uses TN panels. The Samsung doesn't use a PVA panel.

shows the VP912b as 16.7 Million Colors Supported, 12ms - though it may be in error.

Thanks for pointing that... They changed their chart as I can see, that line about 16.7M colors support was not there the last time... But I'm wondering why they put both 16ms and 8ms for the VP191b (16ms in the chart, 8ms above the chart)... Playing with numbers is good for marketing...

I have two ViewSonic VP171b's at work and they are both great! I have had them about a year. One had a "stuck" pixel for about a week, but it is now gone. I use them together on a Matrox Millenium P650:

The picture is low rez...but this is a single desktop: 2560x1024 is simply awesome. You can just see my Evercase Athlon machine below...

I have also seen a older Samsung 15" DVI LCD, and it has been flawless for over two years. It is on a Matrox G550.

I own the Dell 1905FP. Beautiful for text, good for images. Absolutely god-awful for games and movies.

I recently saw the AnandTech review for my monitor, and they said the texture blurring in games was minimal. So do other reviews for the Samsung 193P, which uses the same internal panel. I don't understand how my monitor can look so much worse to my eyes. I'm aware that my statement about the 1905FP contradicts conventional wisdom, but for now I'm not changing my opinion of the screen.

I'll do a side-by-side comparison with the 1905FP and my roommate's brand new 8ms VP171b-2's when I get a chance. I think his has much less screen lag, but the colors are a bit off, and the blacks aren't as dark. But if the 1905FP's response time is nearly as good as it gets, then I guess there's no reason to pass it up over other screens.

I own the Dell 1905FP. Beautiful for text, good for images. Absolutely god-awful for games and movies.

I recently saw the AnandTech review for my monitor, and they said the texture blurring in games was minimal. So do other reviews for the Samsung 193P, which uses the same internal panel. I don't understand how my monitor can look so much worse to my eyes. I'm aware that my statement about the 1905FP contradicts conventional wisdom, but for now I'm not changing my opinion of the screen.

I'll do a side-by-side comparison with the 1905FP and my roommate's brand new 8ms VP171b-2's when I get a chance. I think his has much less screen lag, but the colors are a bit off, and the blacks aren't as dark. But if the 1905FP's response time is nearly as good as it gets, then I guess there's no reason to pass it up over other screens.

Simple: you're more sensitive to/more capable of detecting motion blur artifacts than average people; would this surprise you at all? For example, it is a known problem that many people can detect, "rainbow," effects with single-chip DLP projectors as a result of the color wheel. A minor group of people are so sensitive that they can't even use single-chip DLP displays because it gives them headaches or nausea. I know for a fact that I personally have no idea what this rainbow artifact is, and try as hard as I have, every time I visit Best Buy and stare at the DLP rear-projection displays, I cannot detect rainbow effect.

This is the same reason why some people cannot even see the difference between anlogue output from a craptastically filtered nVIDIA card and a Matrox card; everyone's eyes are different, as is the way that everyone's brain deciphers what the eyes are feeding it. Clearly, you have very sensitive visual accuity and can easily detect poor display quality or strong display artifacting; higher than average. Many people don't notice that on poorly filtered cards, raising the refresh rate too high causes the image to blur; this is clear and obvious to my own eyes. I'm sure you've noticed this as well. That's why I often leave my refresh rate at only 70Hz or so even if the display can do 85 or 100Hz at that resolution--the image remains sharper and more stable at lower refresh rates (that aren't visibly flickering yet like 60Hz) when a video card has poor filters on its analogue output.

DVI avoids this problem, and buying a card that has good filtering is another way to avoid this problem; Matrox uses good filters even on their cheapest cards. It's not nVIDIA's fault when manufacturers skimp on filter capacitor quality; they can set guidelines or minimum standards of quality, but things like this are difficult to measure and implement controls for. Since Matrox makes the cards themselves, they have direct control over the components used to fab the cards. I believe Apple has similar control over exactly what components go into the filter stage of their computer's analogue graphics outputs, which is why Apples have always had such stellar visual output.

Heck there's also color accuity issues. Different people's minds interpret color very differently; some can hardly tell the difference between an LCD and a CRT's color accuracy while others can easily detect the extremely slight misstint of the red/orange band on plasma displays. This doesn't even have any particular link to the individual's ability to detect differences in sharpness, or ability to detect motion blur issues.

Does anybody have a Viewsonic or a Samsung LCD, and if it's the case, how's the overall quality of your LCD? I want to buy a LCD that will last longer than its warranty...

I've used a Viewsonic VX2000 panel at work for over a year, mostly for programming. They had more than 20 of these panels there (and still have them for all I know), and I've not been aware of problems. Personally I was very happy with the quality (if you disregard very minor gripes such as the cheap plastic conver over the connectors).

Simple: you're more sensitive to/more capable of detecting motion blur artifacts than average people; would this surprise you at all?

Yeah, it would surprise me a bit. I'll try posting some screenshots taken with my digital camera. Some of the blurring artifacts are just bizarre, and I think almost anyone would be able to see them in real life.

I've done some preliminary pics, and even though the camera is set to 1/60 shutter speed, sometimes several copies of a game object can be seen. Here's a picture taken in Quake at 1/125, where it looks like six doors are opening instead of one: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v25/S ... CN1541.jpgSince the screen is operating at a 60fps refresh rate, that suggests a response time of almost 100ms, five times higher than the screen's 20ms rating! Interestingly, Xbit-labs' article on LCD panels suggests that PVA-technology panels like the 1905FP might have a maximum gray-to-gray response of about 100ms.

I'll try to post a particularly jarring example once my camera battery is recharged. Then, if I'm lucky, I'll be able to post similar pics from a new 8ms TN panel, the Viewsonic VP171b-2, and maybe from a CRT as a "control".

Damn! It's extremely hard to get that Viewsonic LCD right now... I'm wondering if Viewsonic is changing the panel on the VP912b as they did with the VP191. I think it will take ages to get one.

I can easily pick a Samsung 915N and from what I'm reading, it's supposed to be quite good. Anybody saw one in action? Reading a couple of reviews and comparisons about other LCDs using the exact same panel (a-si TFT/TN 8ms), they saw no notable difference between DVI and Analog using both ATI and NVidia cards. Maybe that's why Samsung did not include a DVI option on the 915N.

Is it me or Samsung seems to have a better balance between contrast and brightness?

I can live without the pivot feature. What I'm looking for is a fast LCD with good colors reproduction. Only the 915N was really tested in that matter. And another thing to concider is that Samsung have now a "no dead pixel policy":

Quote:

Samsung Guarantees Zero Defective Pixels in LCD Monitors

Samsung Electronics announced Thursday that from Jan. 1, customers who discover defective pixels on an LCD monitor produced by the company less than six months after its purchase may have the panel replaced free of charge. An LCD monitor is made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny pixels. Manufacturers have classified products with 10 or less defective pixels as "normal" and refused to repair or exchange them, which led to complaints from customers. Samsung added, however, that the free exchanges do not apply to customers who purchased their LCD monitors before Jan. 1.

Does anybody saw the 915N in action? Except for the height adjustment and the DVI, it seems to be a pretty good LCD and it's a bit cheaper than the Viewsonic (which is not very available right now).

I can live without the pivot feature. What I'm looking for is a fast LCD with good colors reproduction. Only the 915N was really tested in that matter. And another thing to concider is that Samsung have now a "no dead pixel policy":

Quote:

Samsung Guarantees Zero Defective Pixels in LCD Monitors

Samsung Electronics announced Thursday that from Jan. 1, customers who discover defective pixels on an LCD monitor produced by the company less than six months after its purchase may have the panel replaced free of charge. An LCD monitor is made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny pixels. Manufacturers have classified products with 10 or less defective pixels as "normal" and refused to repair or exchange them, which led to complaints from customers. Samsung added, however, that the free exchanges do not apply to customers who purchased their LCD monitors before Jan. 1.

Better check which countries that policy applies to. I think Samsung might have different policies for Asia, North America, Europe, and Australia markets.

Better check which countries that policy applies to. I think Samsung might have different policies for Asia, North America, Europe, and Australia markets.

Hmmm... Maybe you're right... This policy seems to apply only to South Korea. Anyway, it still a good thing when a company start to address such issues, as these monitors will very soon replace all CRTs.

I had dead pixels on a Viewsonic CRT and Viewsonic didn't want to replace the monitor, even in the first 30 days period (express exchange but read the fine prints!). I have friends that keep telling me that Samsung quality is way better. I just want to be sure, the 915N is more easy to get and I really need a new monitor!

Both are TN panels so both have the same viewing angle limitations. Which of these 2 LCDs is the best compromise between contrast ratio and brightness?

Okay, I haven't done a direct side-by-side comparison between the Dell 1905FP (Samsung 193P clone) and the Viewsonic VP171b-2 (8ms model) yet. But I did load Quake onto the Viewsonic, and compared to the Dell the difference is night and day. The Viewsonic looks like almost like a CRT to my eyes. The response time is extremely quick, so moving textures don't noticeably blur. The Viewsonic is darker, but I think it just needs more gamma correction. The 1905FP almost "swims" in comparison.

On the other hand, the Viewsonic doesn't have nearly as good a contrast ratio as the Dell, and you can see this just by comparing the two in a dark room when both are trying to display black images. The Viewsonic's black is much brighter than the Dell's. The colors are more neutral on the Dell as well. Colors change depending on the viewing angle for both screens, but they change more dramatically on the Viewsonic. It's almost like the Viewsonic's backlights are slightly uneven, because you can see the color difference between the left and right halves of the screen even when looking head-on. But really, a professional photo editor would be frustrated by any LCD, because even a few degrees' change in viewing angle will alter the colors of a photo.

I had a chance to borrow a Nec AccuSync LCD71V for a couple of days. It's a 16ms analog LCD and it's pretty nice on my Radeon X800XT. There's a little bit of ghosting and it's a 1280x1024 17" panel (so a bit small). But now I have an idea about an analog LCD! The colors are very good so I think I'm gonna go with the Samsung... I'm still haunted by the Viewsonic ghost!

I just have one last question. Is having a higher contrast ratio really helps to give better blacks? The Samsung has a high contrast ratio compared to the Viewsonic (700:1 for Samsung. 450:1 for Viewsonic). On the other hand, Viewsonic has a better brightness (but I think it's too much - 400-nit for Viewsonic, 300-nit for Samsung). Can somebody clear this up for me please?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum